Topic: Amber Gambler
Started by: Cassidy
Started on: 1/5/2003
Board: RPG Theory
On 1/5/2003 at 8:37pm, Cassidy wrote:
Amber Gambler
Hello all,
Rummaging through my old rpg stuff the other day I came across my copy of Amber and found myself wincing at the memory of the one time I'd tried to run it years ago.
I loved the books. I recalled the first time I read the game and my excitement at running something totally different to the RPGs we'd be playing at the time.
Unfortunately the game fell short of my own expectations.
Some of the players were quite happy with the karma based mechanic that Amber employs while others actually hated it because they felt that the outcome of conflicts were essentially pre-ordained from the get go.
When push comes to shove in Amber the better attribute wins although the players do have the ability through play (and their own ingenuity) to influence the relative degree of success or failure.
At the time I remember it being difficult for me to create conflicts for the players without feeling that I was railroading them to some degree.
Anyways, picking up the Amber book again got me thinking.
This may be anathema to all you Amberites out there but has anyone ever tweaked Amber to introduce an element of fortune, or maybe even some metagame resource into the resolution mechanic so that conflict resolution isn't apparently so cut and dried?
I'm not talking about Amber d20. I'm talking about introducing something pretty minimal and unobtrusive to enhance the degree of uncertainty and chance in conflicts within the game.
Has anyone ever done something like that with Amber?
On 1/5/2003 at 10:30pm, Paul Czege wrote:
RE: Amber Gambler
Hey Cassidy,
Jim Henley's Amberway II PBEM is a fusion of Everway, and its card-based resolution mechanics, and Amber:
http://www.highclearing.com/amberway2/index.html
Paul
On 1/5/2003 at 10:48pm, Andrew Martin wrote:
Re: Amber Gambler
Cassidy wrote: This may be anathema to all you Amberites out there but has anyone ever tweaked Amber to introduce an element of fortune, or maybe even some metagame resource into the resolution mechanic so that conflict resolution isn't apparently so cut and dried?
Probably a bit more than what you're asking for, but I've developed a replacement Amber system that used playing cards, with PC attributes rated as First, Second, Third, and so on, much like the books. It's not fully complete, though, as our group went on to other things.
On 1/6/2003 at 1:44am, Brian Leybourne wrote:
RE: Amber Gambler
We added an element of randomness by simply rolling percentile dice every time a contest happened. On a 96-00 you rolled again and added (ad infinitum), and on a 01-05 you rolled again and subracted (ditto).
Your roll was added to the relevant attribute, and whoever you were working against did the same thing, so if someone was vastly better than you, you still probably didn't stand a chance, but as you had closer levels of ability, randomness crept in.
Worked for us. If you want to limit the randomness, just use a smaller range, say 2-20 with 2d10, acumulating upwards on an 18+ or downwards on a 4-.
Brian.
On 1/6/2003 at 2:48am, DaR wrote:
RE: Amber Gambler
A system I've long considered, but never actually attempted to use in play, is to use Fudge dice (marked +, -, and blank, two each, on a d6). Each side rolls a few dice, and their effective rank for the contest is modified by that many places. If the 1st ranked was facing off against the 3rd ranked and rolled two '-' dice, his effective rank is 3rd. If the 3rd ranked then rolled a '+', he's temporarily 2nd ranked, and thus could win.
Choosing the number of dice to roll could depend on factors like how risky the strategy each player chooses. Truly risky actions might have to roll 3 or 4 dice, giving the possibility of great gains, but also great losses, while conservative actions might be only one die, or none at all.
Since the result of any one die roll are zero centered, on the average, the person with better ranks will win most often, so it doesn't affect the overall outcomes too much.
-DaR
On 1/6/2003 at 12:43pm, simon_hibbs wrote:
RE: Re: Amber Gambler
Cassidy wrote:
When push comes to shove in Amber the better attribute wins although the players do have the ability through play (and their own ingenuity) to influence the relative degree of success or failure.
At the time I remember it being difficult for me to create conflicts for the players without feeling that I was railroading them to some degree.
That's like saying that the outcome of chess is pre-determined.
To be fair, you can do a lot more than just influence the degree of success or failiure. Amber provides a whole host of tweaks and abilities that can be used in contests. You can attempt to switch the determining attribute in a contest from one you're losing at, to one you might win at. You can use the special effects that come with powers to alter the nature of the conetest, or make use of the tactical environment. You can use power words, or powered objects to offset your weaknesses.
It's true that if you limit yourself to a single ability in a contest anfd the other guy is better, you'll basicaly lose. The lesson is, don't have only one trick to pull out of the bag. All randomising outcomes does is reduce the influence player choices have over what happens in tha game.
Anyways, picking up the Amber book again got me thinking.
This may be anathema to all you Amberites out there but has anyone ever tweaked Amber to introduce an element of fortune, or maybe even some metagame resource into the resolution mechanic so that conflict resolution isn't apparently so cut and dried?
One area I think Amber could be usefully modified in is the detail in terms of natural abilitites - essentialy skills. At the moment the Strength, Endurance, Warfare, Psyche system is pretty crude.
Simon Hibbs
On 1/6/2003 at 2:49pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Amber Gambler
Hello,
I think that a system like Amber's offers many, many avenues of "correction," based on personal biases.
The one under discussion is the introduction of Fortune.
Adding higher resolution to the attribute system is another one, and probably worth some discussion, but it's not really the issue at hand. This isn't a "how I'd fix Amber" thread, but rather a "would-or-how Fortune work in there" thread.
Therefore, Simon, the point that I'll address is the one about randomizing - I think your point about "reducing choices" is only valid if we're talking about Fortune-at-the-end. If we're discussing Fortune-in-the-middle, then the randomizing factor operates as a springboard, a "juicy constraint," rather than as a close-the-discussion finishing feature.
I also want to say that yes, I agree with you about the Switch Principle (to call it that) as being the essence of meaningful Amber play as written, in combination with unexpected improvement. Cassidy, in your play of Amber, do you think that what Simon proposes is enough? Can you get enough (a) unpredictability and (b) meaningful/fun player choices out of applying these things, without introducing Fortune? Or is there an essential feature of Fortune that you'd really like to have in there?
Best,
Ron
On 1/6/2003 at 5:38pm, simon_hibbs wrote:
RE: Amber Gambler
Thanks, you're right I am a little off topic, but some statements were made about the game I disagreed with. Oppinions vary.
Ron Edwards wrote:
Therefore, Simon, the point that I'll address is the one about randomizing - I think your point about "reducing choices" is only valid if we're talking about Fortune-at-the-end. If we're discussing Fortune-in-the-middle, then the randomizing factor operates as a springboard, a "juicy constraint," rather than as a close-the-discussion finishing feature.
What I said about choice was : "All randomising outcomes does is reduce the influence player choices have over what happens in tha game. "
I don't mean that the number of choices is reduced, but that the importance of those choices is reduced. If I make a play that would under normal Amber rules win me the contest, all adding fortune does is impose a chance that I'll lose despite my tactical genius (modest cough). If I make a bad play that would normaly cash out my chips, then all fortune does is offer a condescending sop to me in the form of a charity handout I don't deserve. I'd rather take it like a man, thank you very much.
Well, that's the purist in me talking. However there are reasons why Amber uses a diceless mechanic, other than just because it's a trendy buzzword. In the Amber books nothing happens by chance, every contest and every outcome has a reason for it. what appears to be lucky chance always turns out to have a machiavelian explanation that twists the plot this way and that. In this case a diceless mechanic makes a game rule out of a narative rule. Purely as a matter of taste, I find that very appealing.
Simon Hibbs
On 1/6/2003 at 6:07pm, bluegargantua wrote:
RGB Resolution
Hi,
I used the following scheme for an Amber LARP and it seemed to balance the Karma system with a more chancy Fortune system really well.
You can find the rules right here.
Hope you find it useful
Tom
On 1/6/2003 at 6:41pm, Cassidy wrote:
RE: Amber Gambler
Thanks for all the replies, much appreciated.
As totally novice Amber players it was a pretty big step for us at the time, possibly a step too far to be fair since it was such a radical departure from the staple RPGs we'd played before.
Switching attributes mid-contest was one of the things that we did employ - it was OK but became a bit tired and somewhat predictable. "I'm losing with Warfare, let me try and close to grapple and try Strength instead". If at first you don't succeed try another attribute became the unspoken motto of some players. I accept that may be a tad unfair since we didn't play the game long enough to fully explore the possibilities of switching.
If we had persevered with the game then perhaps we would have fully realised the nuances and tweaks that inventive Amber players come up with which would have made conflict resolution less predictable.
Ron Edwards wrote: ...do you think that what Simon proposes is enough? Can you get enough (a) unpredictability and (b) meaningful/fun player choices out of applying these things, without introducing Fortune? Or is there an essential feature of Fortune that you'd really like to have in there?
My answers are sort of linked...
Is there enough unpredictability in Amber and enough meaningful fun/player choices?
I think it depends a lot on the degree of familiarity that the GM and players have with Amber itself.
Increased familiarity with Amber increases the choices available to players (and GM) which in turn increases the unpredicability of play since what the players could do in any given situation becomes a lot more varied.
I had a rulebook and so did 2 of the other players. Strangely enough they were the players that did get a grasp of the game and enter into the spirit of things. The book itself is an excellent read with plenty of play examples so that could explain why they "got it" more than the other players.
If we'd played longer we may have got there in the end.
Ron Edwards wrote: ...is there an essential feature of Fortune that you'd really like to have in there?
Suspense. A big element of Fortune for me is the feeling of suspense it can engender in the players. No cause is lost. Nothing is certain. Sometimes the shit hits the fan and you forget to duck.
Fortune in the right places, at the right time, is a great way of heightening the tension of a scene or conflict and keeping everyone (GM included) on the edge of their seats. No-one really knows what's going to happen. A seemingly lost cause can become a memorable victory, a near certainty can become an abject failure. I love it when fortune throws the players (and the GM) a curveball. As Ron said it serves as a springboard to turn the game in a totally unexpected direction and promote inventive and memorable roleplay. That's what I missed from Amber and I think the players did too.
Ideally some minimal FitM tweak is what I'd love to see. Utilizing Amber's Good/Bad stuff in some way could be cool way to do that.
Andrew Martin wrote: Probably a bit more than what you're asking for, but I've developed a replacement Amber system that used playing cards, with PC attributes rated as First, Second, Third, and so on, much like the books. It's not fully complete, though, as our group went on to other things.
Andrew mentioned using cards (thanks Andrew) and I did find his wepage at http://valley.150m.com/Games/Amber.html. You are correct Andrew insofar that it is probably a bit too much for what I need although having the characters create their own trump decks (and utilizing your mechanic) could be a great way of running an Amber game.
On 1/7/2003 at 3:46am, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Amber Gambler
I'm a big fan of fortune in games, both for the reasons you give and for what might be called the "illusion of equity" they create--that the referee can't be faulted when the dice made the decision.
But I wouldn't add a die roll to Chess. (Well, actually, I just thought of a way to do it; but since I used that in an as yet unpublished strategy board game I think I'll keep it to myself.)
Amber has the reputation of being the Chess Game of role playing systems; I've not played it, but I watched once, and it was brilliantly complex in the way players attempted to outmaneuver each other. I think the introduction of fortune would be a drastic change to the game system, on the order of adding dice to chess.
But I suppose that what you're saying is you'd like to use the Amber system as a jumping off point for a new system which has a fortune component. Let me ask you this: what would you actually want the fortune component to do, and to what degree? There are a lot of things a die roll can resolve. What do you want to resolve?
Just some possibilities:
• A die roll to bonus the attribute involved in the contest (has been suggested, reduces the "may the best man win" aspect").
• A die roll to determine which attribute is used in the contest (eliminates strategic maneuvering).
• A die roll to determine which player gets to pick the attribute on which the contest will be based (alters strategy significantly).
• A die roll to initiate the confrontation (creates the possibility that a trap might fail).
• A die roll to withdraw from confrontation (prevents retreat).
Fortune can do a lot. What do you want it to do?
--M. J. Young
On 1/7/2003 at 11:11am, simon_hibbs wrote:
RE: Amber Gambler
Actualy I have a confession to make. Long before I read the books, or the ADRPG was published, I played a game based on Amber using AD&D. This was shortly before I discovered RuneQuest 2 and sold all my AD&D stuff. Actualy AD&D was a surprisingly good fit for the Amber universe.
I feel compelled to mention it, as I loved the game at the time (some 20 years ago, how time flies) and so I'd feel like a cheat if I didn't come clean.
Simon Hibbs
On 1/7/2003 at 4:06pm, Cassidy wrote:
RE: Amber Gambler
Hi M.J,
M. J. Young wrote: I'm a big fan of fortune in games, both for the reasons you give and for what might be called the "illusion of equity" they create--that the referee can't be faulted when the dice made the decision.
"Illusion of Equity" (I like that phrase btw) is something that may not be necessary for every roleplay group but it is an unspoken requirement of some of my regular players. Either they don't trust me or they don't trust GM's in general - I'm not sure which. They have issues with games that rely on a lot of GM fiat.
M. J. Young wrote: Amber has the reputation of being the Chess Game of role playing systems; I've not played it, but I watched once, and it was brilliantly complex in the way players attempted to outmaneuver each other. I think the introduction of fortune would be a drastic change to the game system, on the order of adding dice to chess.
I wouldn't compare Amber to Chess. Chess has a set of explicitly defined rules that govern all aspects of play. IMO Amber has guidelines rather than explicit rules. The outcome of conflicts in Amber is in part determined by the objective interpretation of these guidelines by the GM. I don't see Amber and Chess as being comparable.
M. J. Young wrote: But I suppose that what you're saying is you'd like to use the Amber system as a jumping off point for a new system which has a fortune component.
As I said in my last post, ideally some minimal FitM tweak is what I'd love to see. Utilizing Amber's Good/Bad stuff in some way could be cool way to do that.
Minimal being the operative word.
Creating a whole new system seems unnecessary. I see no need to reinvent the wheel when the addition of a couple of spoke may suffice.
M. J. Young wrote: Let me ask you this: what would you actually want the fortune component to do, and to what degree?
Just some possibilities:
A die roll to bonus the attribute involved in the contest (has been suggested, reduces the "may the best man win" aspect").
A die roll to determine which attribute is used in the contest (eliminates strategic maneuvering).
A die roll to determine which player gets to pick the attribute on which the contest will be based (alters strategy significantly).
A die roll to initiate the confrontation (creates the possibility that a trap might fail).
A die roll to withdraw from confrontation (prevents retreat).
It's worth remembering that Fortune does not necessarily mean dice. In fact for aestetic reasons I'd be inclined to steer clear of dice as a means of introducing an element of Fortune into Amber. Given prior posts, and my own gut feeling, then maybe cards would be the way to go.
I would (and do in other games I run) use Fortune when I feel that a conflict has multiple equally interesting outcomes any one of which could spur roleplay in a seemingly unknown direction. With FitM, success/failure are very much open to subjective interpretation by the GM.
With Fortune involved, I'd possibly breakdown conflict resolution as follows...
* A situation or conflict arises in play that requires a resolution.
* GM sets the scene for the players.
* Player(s) give general statement of intent.
* GM considers the situation, applies some Fortune element in conjunction with their own judgement to help determine outcome.
* GM and Player(s) roleplay outcome - FitM.
I really wouldn't want to employ Fortune in Amber beyond that to be honest.